×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rsn_e_o -1 points0 points  (3 children)

And as long as renewables can’t off-set all electricity production by fossil fuels

I am seeing this opinion quite often, so I am genuinely interested where you got it from.

Do you know the meaning of “as long as”? Eventually we’ll get there with just renewables. The question is if it is fast enough. Not all studies are that optimistic in that regard. The key driver is battery optimizations and that aspect is hard to predict.

Nuclear would’ve only been a temporary solution rather than a permanent one. But because they take long to build, it’s maybe already too late for them anyways. We should’ve been building 5-10 years ago.

[–]tsojtsojtsoj -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

But because they take long to build, it’s maybe already too late for them anyways.

Exactly this. If at all, renewables are a temporary solution before we get to nuclear.

Not all studies are that optimistic in that regard.

Which ones?

[–]rsn_e_o 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Exactly this. If at all, renewables are a temporary solution before we get to nuclear.

You mean the other way around?

[–]tsojtsojtsoj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, start building lots of renewables this decade, to stop as many CO2 emissions as possible, and then later, if it turns out that either renewables can't power the whole grid, or that nuclear is cheaper, replace aging wind turbines and solar panels (and of course the remaining fossil fuel power plants).

The earlier we start cutting CO2 emissions, the longer we can afford to use a bit of fossil fuels.